One will explore various ideologies or purposes of punishment and how these ideologies can affect sentencing.

Prompt

First, identify at least three key ideologies or purposes of punishment. Select the ideologies or purposes one would like to explore a bit more and enter one in each open text box in the "Ideology/Purpose" column in the provided Template.

• Note: one may repeat ideologies or purposes more than once, but must use a different sentencing structure with which to explore the impact.

Then, choose at least three sentencing structures to enter into each open text box in the "Sentencing Structure" column. One may enter them in any order to explore the effects of the structure on the ideology or purpose of your choice. For example, one may wish to explore the effects of mandatory minimum sentences on retribution or rehabilitation. Select the three pairs that interest someone the most.

Finally, in 100 to 150 words for each of the three effects one will explore, describe how each ideology or purpose and the sentencing structure someone selected in that row affects sentencing. What is the impact of each sentencing structure when a person is trying to achieve the ideology or purpose another has identified? Consider the following:

• Does it help achieve the goals of that ideology or purpose? Does it hinder them?
• Does it create potential new pathways of punishment or, at the very least, new approaches to punishment?
• What happens to the system when someone combines these different ideas?

Specifically, address the following criteria:

• Identify key ideologies or purposes of punishment.
• Choose a sentencing structure for each ideology or purpose.
• Explore how each ideology or purpose and its corresponding sentencing structure affects sentencing.

Ideology/Purpose Example: Retribution [Insert text. | [Insert text.] [Insert text. | Sentencing Structure Example: Mandatory minimum [Insert text. | [Insert text.] [Insert text. | Effects Example: Mandatory minimums are aimed at imposing fixed penalties for offenders committing similar crimes and typically result in tougher penalties for more serious offenders. Retribution refers to \"just deserts\" and \"an eye for an eye.\" According to the textbook, Corrections Today (2014), the goal of retribution is to impose punishment that holds the offender accountable and that is proportionate to the crime. Retribution is not concerned with future outcome, only that the offender is held accountable and that the appropriate punishment is granted (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). A first-time nonviolent offender, then, should be treated less severely than a repeat offender. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws seem to be perfectly aligned with the goal of retribution. Laws such as three-strikes and truth in sentencing result in harsher penalties for repeat and/or violent offenders. It must be mentioned that mandatory minimums may interfere with other long term goals, such as struggles with reentry. Siegel, L & Bartollas, C. (2014). Corrections Today, Second Edition. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. [Insert text. | [Insert text.] [Insert text.|